Poll: Do you receive under the species of wine?

[ajpirc]

Jesus asked us to receive both, so I do.

We must understand that under the appearance of bread, there is both the Body AND the Blood. It is the same under the appearance of wine.

But I know where you’re coming from when you say, “Jesus asked us to receive both.” He said take the bread and eat it, then He said take the cup and drink from it.

 

[Brendan]

We must understand that under the appearance of bread, there is both the Body AND the Blood. It is the same under the appearance of wine.

But I know where you’re coming from when you say, “Jesus asked us to receive both.” He said take the bread and eat it, then He said take the cup and drink from it.

As I mentioned above, we both eat and drink when we recieve a single species.

Our mouths decieve us, in sensing only eating, in much the same way as our eyes see only bread.

Remember that the Chuch regularly withheld the chalice from the laity, but the Church cannot violate a commandment of Christ. It has always followed this commandment, giving the faithful the Blood of Christ to drink. But it did so under the species of bread.

One other thing, we cannot take the Eucharistic Narrative as always applying to the laity. Christ followed his statement of “take and drink” with “Do this in memory of me”

The Church has held that as a command for the priesthood to celebrate the Eucharist regularly and as a memorial.

But if one takes the Eucharistic Narrative as applying equally to the laity, it would me we all can celebrate Mass. Does anyone here wish to make that claim?

 

[benedictgal]

There is always intinction, something that was not mentioned in the poll. That, too, is a valid means of receiving Holy Communion under both species. However, only a priest and bishop can administer via intinction.

 

[smichhertz]

SInce Christ is present in Body and Blood in each species. the reception of a single species includes both eating and drinking.

Our bodies do not sense the drinking, in the same way that we do not sense that we are consuming living, flowing blood, but we are.

So Christ’s command to eat and drink is fulfilled in a single species. To state otherwise is to deny that Christ is present Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity in each each species.

I did not mean to imply that to not receive under both species is a violation of Christ’s command. Only that when Christ instituted the sacrament, He gave it to the apostles under both species.

I take this to mean that ideally, everyone should receive under both species, but practically it does not always work out that way.

 

[GloriousOrder]

I always consume the precious Blood because He still retains the accidents of wine - and that means alcohol. Having been raised in a very puritan, dualist, scary worldview that made alcohol into a sort of demon, it takes a lot of courage for me to consume His Blood. As Christ our Lord wants each of His immortal children to grow, so I will comply by growing and stepping forward each time to partake of that sacred chalice.

Interestingly, I’d say at least 70% of the people at Mass across this city do not go to the Blood.

 

[smichhertz]

There is always intinction, something that was not mentioned in the poll. That, too, is a valid means of receiving Holy Communion under both species. However, only a priest and bishop can administer via intinction.

Really? I recall going to a mass where there were EMs administering via intinction. But perhaps they were ignorantly doing it wrong.

The only reason why I didn’t include intinction was simply because its not offered regularly. Or at least, not that I have seen.

 

[benedictgal]

Really? I recall going to a mass where there were EMs administering via intinction. But perhaps they were ignorantly doing it wrong.

The only reason why I didn’t include intinction was simply because its not offered regularly. Or at least, not that I have seen.

The norms specifically state “priest”, “sacredo” in Latin. The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments clarified that only the priest and the bishop can do this. Furthermore, when I spoke to them (on several occasions over the same issue), I was told that even in the USCCB’s own norms, it was indicated that only the priest (and obviously, the bishop) can do this.

 

[Brendan]

I did not mean to imply that to not receive under both species is a violation of Christ’s command. Only that when Christ instituted the sacrament, He gave it to the apostles under both species.
I take this to mean that ideally, everyone should receive under both species, but practically it does not always work out that way.

A key point is that He gave it to the APOSTLES that way. The Apostles were ordained as bishops at the Last Supper as well, and bishops have always recieved both species.

It does not logically follow that what Christ instructed the Apostles (and their sucessors, the bishops) to do applies equally to us.

The example I gave above was that Christ also commanded that the Apostles celebrate Mass and thus confect the Eucharist; I hope that none of the laity here think that THAT command applies to them as well.

 

[Brendan]

The only reason why I didn’t include intinction was simply because its not offered regularly. Or at least, not that I have seen.

That is the normative way at my parish. Done by the priest at the altar rail.

 

[LPS]

The logistics are a little messy in my parish and there is often a back-log in front of the cup. Occasionally, I would just receive the host so as not to add to the blocking of the aisles.

This is why I occasionally receive only the bread, but I prefer to receive both.

 

[smichhertz]

That is the normative way at my parish. Done by the priest at the altar rail.

Really? Wow, wish they had something like that here where I live. That would be the ideal way to receive for me.

 

[CatholicFireman]

It’s offered under both at Saturday morning mass. When I can attend I receive both.

At another parish I attend, the priest dips the Body into the Blood and says, “Body and Blood of Christ”.

Amen.

 

[smichhertz]

A key point is that He gave it to the APOSTLES that way. The Apostles were ordained as bishops at the Last Supper as well, and bishops have always recieved both species.

It does not logically follow that what Christ instructed the Apostles (and their sucessors, the bishops) to do applies equally to us.

The example I gave above was that Christ also commanded that the Apostles celebrate Mass and thus confect the Eucharist; I hope that none of the laity here think that THAT command applies to them as well.

Holy Communion is for all Catholics, not just bishops and priests. Nothing in Church teaching reserves the reception of Communion under both species to just bishops or priests. Like you said, the Church instead teaches that receiving under both species is a fuller sign of Communion. The Church has carefully laid out for us what commands were being given to the Apostles as priests/bishops and what commands were meant for all.

Ideally, we would all receive under the fuller sign, either by intinction or with a separate chalice. Practically, it doesn’t always work out that way.

 

[laszlo]

In my church there is no wine distributed. The Church, which for me represents Jesus, had good reasons for several centuries to distribute one species only. I can’t even image how can I receive the cup kneeling at the bars.

Since the leftover from the vine always represents problems, some get drunk, some empty to the sink, I am almost sure that in long term it will be abolished again, unless the Masses will be reduced to small communities.

Jesus intended the cup in this diner environment. Things changed

 

[smichhertz]

In my church there is no wine distributed. The Church, which for me represents Jesus, had good reasons for several centuries to distribute one species only. I can’t even image how can I receive the cup kneeling at the bars.

Since the leftover from the vine always represents problems, some get drunk, some empty to the sink, I am almost sure that in long term it will be abolished again, unless the Masses will be reduced to small communities.

Jesus intended the cup in this diner environment. Things changed

I don’t know exactly why Jesus instituted the sacrament under both species, but the Church does what she can to follow His commands while still remaining practical in her implementation of them.

I like the intinction idea the best as it allows the laity to receive under both species while eliminating all of the logistical concerns with having a separate chalice.

I guess another question is what is better: to uniformity and have all receive under one species, or allow the option of the fuller sign of receiving under both species knowing that not all will be able to do it?

I’d assume the fuller sign trumps the uniformity of everyone receiving the same, but I’m not sure what the Church has to say on that.

 

[Young_Thinker]

I always take both the Body and Blood. At the churches that I have been to, most people only eat the Body. However, I feel that it is silly to not drink the wine out of fear of catching a cold or because you do not like the taste of diluted wine. It is Jesus for Heaven’s sake (or rather, for man’s sake)! Even though the accidents of bread and wine, I doubt that you could get sick from the Eucharist (well, maybe unless you were in a state of mortal sin when you received Him).

 

[ajpirc]

At the churches that I have been to, most people only eat the Body.

When those people “only eat the Body” as you say, what you mean is they only take the Eucharist under the form of bread. For it is impossible to eat the Body without drinking the Blood. When we only receive the Eucharist in one form, both Body and Blood are there.

I heard a story once, I think it might have been on here, where a boy was allergic to the wheat in the Eucharist, so the priest told him to receive the Eucharist only under the form of wine. The boy’s mother became upset because she thought the priest was trying to keep the boy from receiving the Body of Christ. The priest then had to tell the mother that both species contain both the Body and Blood of Christ.

 

[Incomplete]

As I mentioned above, we both eat and drink when we recieve a single species.

Our mouths decieve us, in sensing only eating, in much the same way as our eyes see only bread.

Remember that the Chuch regularly withheld the chalice from the laity, but the Church cannot violate a commandment of Christ. It has always followed this commandment, giving the faithful the Blood of Christ to drink. But it did so under the species of bread.

One other thing, we cannot take the Eucharistic Narrative as always applying to the laity. Christ followed his statement of “take and drink” with “Do this in memory of me”

The Church has held that as a command for the priesthood to celebrate the Eucharist regularly and as a memorial.

But if one takes the Eucharistic Narrative as applying equally to the laity, it would me we all can celebrate Mass. Does anyone here wish to make that claim?

While Christ is fully in both, I’m not sure where you get the idea that eating and drinking are the same functions. Jesus offered both bread and wine, and said “do this.”

While the Church has at times withheld the chalice for good reason, that doesn’t negate that Jesus asked us to do both. He did not command both, so we are not required, but because He asked, I receive both.

I’m also not quite understanding how understanding the words of Jesus as offering both species to all of us means we think we can all celebrate Mass. If that was so, why does the Church offer both?

 

[Brendan]

Holy Communion is for all Catholics, not just bishops and priests. Nothing in Church teaching reserves the reception of Communion under both species to just bishops or priests.

I understand that. My point was no Catholic can claim that offering only a single species is some way goes against what Christ taugh in the Eucharistic Narratives.

Like you said, the Church instead teaches that receiving under both species is a fuller sign of Communion. The Church has carefully laid out for us what commands were being given to the Apostles as priests/bishops and what commands were meant for all.

I agree

Ideally, we would all receive under the fuller sign, either by intinction or with a separate chalice. Practically, it doesn’t always work out that way.

Actually no. Ideally, we would all be at a state of knowledge and Grace were the sign is superfluous. That is the nature of a sign. Once you get there, you don’t need the sign anymore

As I mentioned, the Church considers a sign to be that which points to the greater reality ( Modern Catholic Dictionary - Fr. John Harden). Personally, I’d rather focus on the reality ( Christ present in the Eucharist) than any sign which points there. I am already certain of the greater reality, I have little need for the sign.

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

When I can…I receive under both. It’s just too hard to pass up the Blood of Christ…